At 1/12/12 06:33 PM, Ranger2 wrote:
So it's in the news: The US, Afghanistan, and the terrorists are trying to set up peace talks and agreements.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the success of any negotiations depends on the Taliban adhering to specific conditions, "including laying down arms, renouncing al-Qaida and abiding by the Afghan constitution, including its provisions for minority rights and women's rights." Do you ever get tired of being this wrong and/or blatantly deceptive? That's from a fucking AP article, two seconds on google. For fucks sake I think we need to test people before they're allowed to make a topic...
What in the world happened to the US not negotiating with terrorists?
That's still in effect. Unless you think the Taliban and Al Qaeda are the exact same thing. Which they aren't.
The very idea that we can work out a settlement between us and the Taliban is laughable.
No it isn't. The Taliban are most likely tired of getting shot at and only managing to hang in there, but not really gain ground. We're tired of the quagmire this war has become, right now we're looking at another 2 years till complete withdrawal, by that point we'll have invested 13 years into this war. 13 years! No way does the government want to run the risk that this blows up on them when we go. Both sides have something to gain here, it hurts neither one to at least make the effort.
The very same people who aided al-Qaeda, that killed 3,000 innocent people, destroyed an iconic American landmark, damaged the Pentagon, and almost tried to hit the White House are now going to be on the negotiating table?
No they aren't, because Al-Qaeda isn't going to be there. Also I've not actually seen evidence that the Taliban participated or aided in the attack, just that they sheltered them after...but oh wait, where did we find Osama again? Oh right, our allies in Pakistan who we aren't at war with...go spew the Bush Admin nonsense a couple years ago before we confirmed where Osama really was. Let the grown ups play politics and deal with world affairs please.
There are two types of enemies: those who fight with you for political reasons or territorial reasons.
I think you mean "frenemies" because enemies are usually defined as the guys who fight AGAINST you.
Like the USSR, Saddam's Iraq, and North Korea, negotiation may be tough, but it's possible.
So, we can negotiate with Iraq...who we claimed were terrorists, said needed to go, and I believe you've said that too. We can even negotiate with NK which is a regime as vile as the Taliban that isolates and torments it's people and elevates it's oppressive regime to God-King status...but not the Taliban who are a deposed political organization basically reduced to the status of guerilla insurgent? Huh? I don't understand how you did that math here.
Then there are enemies like al-Qaeda and the Taliban:
Al-Qaeda is not part of this. Only the Taliban, which at this point I think is only fighting because well...that's what any deposed government that still has the strength to fight back against those that tossed them out does.
This is not a political argument.
This is totally a political argument. All arguments involving government are political, most things in life are in fact political. Don't be stupid.
Radical groups like al-Qaeda and groups that support them like the Taliban do not care who they kill, as long as it's someone who is not a member of their extremist Islamic culture, or a woman.
Mmmm, yes and no. For the amount of planning and preparation it takes to execute an attack like al-qaeda does, you have to care. Groups like the Taliban? They're just happy to be leeches and snakes. To support these groups, but never strike themselves because if THEY attack a sovereign nation and put their names on it, they can look down the barrel of a big bag of consequences. At least that's the game that was. Under Bush FP, if you were thought to be in league with a terrorist, that was provocation enough.
Much like the Palestinian terrorists who fight Israel because it exists, so do the terrorists who fight the United States.
I think that's a simplistic characterization of the aims and objectives of terrorists who happen to be Palestinian sympathizers....but I think that's really verging into another topic. It must be nice to see the world in such black and white terms.
We support democracy and religious freedom, something that they despise.
No, we support people who claim to be democratic. We pay lip service to religious freedom, but we don't necessarily care if it's enforced. Just don't kill your citizens where we can see it and cause us embarrassment on the evening news. Israel is NOT a bastion for religious tolerance, many of our other current allies are not either. Peddle the bullshit to a crowd that isn't basically educated in world affairs plz.
It wouldn't matter if we had not put troops in Saudi Arabia (never mind the fact that when we did we had the full permission of the Saudi government) or supported Israel.
No, those things do matter. Not as much as the terrorists want to claim it does, that's true, but it DOES matter. Let's stop with the dishonesty plz.
We are simply the biggest, most powerful country that embodies what they hate.
Nope, it's definitely more complicated then that. Try cracking a book and doing a little research every once in awhile instead of lapping up the right wing message on the issue and considering nothing else.
I also have to ask the powers that be, what would a settlement between the US and al-Qaeda look like?
I don't know, and I won't find out since that's not what's being negotiated.
Would the Taliban share power with the Afghani government?
I guess that's a detail to be worked out at the negotiations isn't it?
How can we honestly say we are spreading democracy to Afghanistan if the Taliban, in any way, are allowed back into power?
Well, if they're allowed to become a political party within the new system, and are willing to act in accordance with that system, and people are willing to vote for them...isn't that true democracy in action? Not limiting the Afghan people's choices and allowing them to choose the leadership they want?
And for those who say "we're negotiating with the Taliban, al-Qaeda doesn't count," remember that the Taliban aided and sheltered al-Qaeda.
They did, and as a term of negotiation, they need to renounce al-qaeda. They renounce al-qaeda or they get nothing. How much more clear can that be?
Anywhere the Taliban retakes will become a ground for al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups.
Ah, because you know the Taliban just LOVE al-Qaeda that much, that 12 years of being on the run, striking like thieves in the night and being out of power hasn't made them that much more willing to decide al-Qaeda is more trouble then it's worth? Ok. Not like you've ever been wrong before...
Should we have let Hitler stay in power in WWII? Or Mussolini?
The Taliban are not the same as those two. This is classic Reduction to Hitler and is a fitting conclusion for an ignorant rant full of inaccuracy and falsehood.